About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
544

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Leigh 9, Tidwell 7, Us 5, Schreiber 4, Melara 3, Bryant 2, S.f. 1, Alonso 1, Pilpel 1, Mondejar 1, Mr. Leigh 1, Harrison 1, Mcdonnell 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV2    [untitled]  

    July 25, 2012
    2:30 - 3:00am PDT  

2:30am
see if there is interest in moving this line north to the 13th street. this is between harrison and bryant. >> that is what i was interested in. >> that is a zero population change. >> that would have a consistent line all the way across. there are in of lines there. >> and it would continue onto
2:31am
division south of bryant. commissioner tidwell: yes. commissioner schreiber: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. vice chair lam: yes. commissioner melara: i am not sure. yes, of course. commissioner leigh: yes. >> please make this change. >> all i feel so much better. >> is there anything else for consideration with regard to this iteration of the map which becomes our final map? i want to see if there are
2:32am
any other proposals of any kind. i entertain a motion to adopt this as our final map. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> miss tidwell . commissioner tidwell: yes. commissioner pilpel: yes. commissioner mondejar: yes. >> i have never seen council glare. >> i am thinking. >> i am going to come back to him. >> i wanted to do this after a break.
2:33am
>> ok, can i rescind the vote and take it after the break and have the vote with alonso back in the room. >> without objection. >> they do so much. we will take this vote up after the break. before the break, let me point to the fact that we will go to the next item which is map and final report. we will hear first from our final at the turn of the current draft. walk us through that. we will welcome in any additions or edits. we have had two members working
2:34am
on the report. we will trust fund that had a gain work. any questions? a cat we will wait until 2:30 by that clock. it is a 20-min >> so in order to ensure that we can cast what becomes a final vote on what is in fact a final map, we're going to allow the consultants to complete, in the room right now while we move to another item -- to complete their review in light of the changes that we made today. so that we -- when we return to this item, we can, in fact, take a final vote on a final map.
2:35am
any objection to moving in that direction? hearing none, item five. task force map and report. we will discuss and take action on the time report. we will first here from member leigh, who did the final round of editing unto the draft. we will hear proposals for edits and revisions. again, in the general spirit, not in the, in the grammatical end or maynor or major sense, that we don't want to group edit because that would be to laborious. with that, member leigh. >> thank you, mr. chair. and i believe everyone has a copy of a couple of different documents that we will be using
2:36am
for a reference for this item. so the main was is the latest draft of the report itself. there's a separate document that is entitled, sf redistrict and task force, neighborhoods intact 4/11/2012 draft and a third document which says lessons learned and recommendations from individual task force members. >> one second. the task force draft i have. the second document you referenced -- >> that was sent to us -- >> in my stack. >> too many papers. overloaded. it's here somewhere, i'm sure. >> there are copies, i believe, on the table as well. so some some respect it was not entirely clear to me how to
2:37am
incorporate some of the content. so if we can talk through that as needed. it seems like we have just one additional section of content that member tidwell submitted that we don't have in our hard copy. so if we can take that up as well. so just to begin with the mane report document itself, again, i want to thank everyone, all of my colleagues but especially member melara for taking the first leg of the editing responsibility and she incorporated as much as she could by, i believe, thursday late in in the day on thursday and i made subsequent changes that are reflected in this draft. so if i understand your direction correctly, mr. chair, we don't want to go through line by line or -- >> that's correct. i will ask you to remind us of
2:38am
what is in place and in and highlight in particular from your point of view what's not. >> ok. the first section, first page, first page i believe an entirety has not changed. member schreiber drafted this and it was very helpful. it needed i. this whole section needed in our opinion, a little editing. so if anybody sees any comments to make, please interrupt me. otherwise, we will just go on to the second page. again, there wasn't a whole lot in this most recent round of edits that member melara and i made to the second page either. we did cleanup the names as appropriate. and i don't think there was any change to page two, going on to page three, member melara,
2:39am
please help me if you notice changes i'm not -- that i'm not updating people on. >> to clarify was -- because both member land jahr and lam submitted quite a bit of information both on the -- on what happened for outreach and some of the issues confronted because in the outreach process and because some of it overlapped itself, you know, i sort of took the license to sort of summarize what was being said so it's important for the two of you to look at it and see if we captured what you wanted in it because there was some repetitive information so we didn't want to just put the two pieces side by side. instead i took the liberty of combining everything. >> and that is a few -- more pages in. so i think it's more like page
2:40am
four and five and six and -- >> well, if it is, there is some -- i will tell you what, for example -- >> no. >> member melara, if you wouldn't mind, if i can just go through the earlier sections and we will comment on that momentarily. so one slide edit to the bottom of page three was the description of the caption for the compactness criteria. there's a little bit of words missing there. i hope it seems appropriate to the task force. and going on to page four, the description of the task force process. there were some additional -- some additional language incorporated here in the second paragraph. we did -- we did name the number of meetings or identified the number of meetings that were
2:41am
held, meetings which ranged from two to five hours each. i did want to point out that we received additional information that did not make it into this draft. that's my fault. but we could choose to -- to include the fact that there were about 100 total hours of meetings, approximately. so if we want to include that, we can certainly do that. and the suggestion i would make is just in that first sentence of the third paragraph to add comma after each comma, totaling approximately 100 hours. and if the cleric or chair mcdonnell, if either of you have additional statistics, i think i got what i have with this one change appended but i have missed something in all of the e-mails -- i might have missed something in all of the e-mails. then the language with respect to -- the elections department
2:42am
or the elections commission i think that was already cleaned up. moving on to page five. so this is where the -- this is where the discussion of the community outreach activities was incorporated and i believe as member melara said. if you want to continue what you're describing before, member melara, this is the section in which she attempted to synthesize and summarize the multiple descriptions that a couple of task force members submitted. on this topic. any questions? ok. keep going. so the budget paragraph, first full paragraph on page 5, i believe vice chair lam drafted and also this incorporates
2:43am
language, i believe, from member mondejar about the community advertisements, community newspaper advertisements, and, again, i don't know if it's exactly the language that you submitted, member mondejar, but i believe it contains most of the important -- pertinent facts. then a couple paragraphs down, the description of the advancement project, vice chair lam provided alternate language about that. compared to the draft we were looking at earlier this week. and then going on to page six, the language on the top half of that page was modified just to reflect what we did in our meetings at that took place this week, so i.e. or e.g. that we
2:44am
adopted, working draft maps through april 11th, we continued the process of reviewing, revising and publishing the working draft map through april 11, and the task force, i know this hasn't taken place yet, but anticipating the task force will adopt its final map today, april 14. >> may i make one suggestion at that point? it's just that the task course included language reflecting its final vote. >> yes. continue? >> yes, please. >> next section four, final map and plan, this is where we incorporated all of the individual members lists of the neighborhoods or communities that were discussed in all of our meetings and i believe there are still -- i'm not sure that every list here incorporates a submission from each of us, but
2:45am
i'm not -- i wasn't aware of who was still outstanding or disruptions for which district were still outstanding. that might be something -- >> let's pause on that question. so who has not submitted their district? >> i september my twice. >> so district one and four? >> yeah. >> i have that. >> ok, anyone snells >> do you have it with you? >> did not. did not. >> on the internet so i september it twice. >> one from member pilpel had -- was more like a narrative. >> may i speak to that? >> yes, please. >> so i wasn't clear after our last meeting what format to use so i wrote it in more of a narrative format and assumed it would get conformed to whatever
2:46am
we were doing. so sorry about the confusion there, member pilpel. so i did not attempt that, so we can do that. maybe we need to do that in realtime and i have that -- i think i can find that document you sent. >> if i may interject just briefly, so the agreed pong format was the member schreiber, actually had that conversation with regard because there were multiple options all viable and we just termed for consistency sake we used one and it was member schreiber, which was d-2. so that was the agreed upon format for that section. mr. leigh? >> ok. so the next section was section five, section five deviations in excess of 1%. this is where i think i need a little bit of clarification. so i was not quite sure whether
2:47am
this format that appears in this main draft in that document is what we intended to include in our draft or whether it was meant to be substituted with this other document which is on a separate page in our handouts, s.f. redistricting task force, neighborhoods in fact for 2011 or they meant to be two different things and i want prepared for that? >> sure. let me try to represent where we landed. where i believe we landed is we were clear that we wanted and needed to offer justification for deviations, and we had discussion whether or not to do all of them or only to do those plus or above minus 1%. we determined to do all of them. we leave at the second description because the
2:48am
assignment is given upon the agreement to do all of them, the assignment was given to the consultants to please give us the reconnected -- because we were all over the place, i use that loosely, in terms of neighborhoods or not. the document, one page that you have, is the submission from the consultants. and so it would replace then -- the bullets underneath each of the district one, district two. so you're opening district one negative four points, whatever the deviation is, to preserve the following neighborhoods period no. communities of interest because we agreed there would only be neighborhoods, and not communities of interest. it would be to preserve the fo the data in this document provided, again, by the consultants which would be inserted. >> ok. >> i would just make the clarification and i think the
2:49am
data they submitted is not incomplete and they not that they did something incorrect lip but incomplete in terms of the neighborhood. for instance, the neighborhoods, sort of within the west of twin peeks council, whatever it is, 30 neighborhoods versus the west of twin peaks council, which we did not print to district seven, i think we should be fairly clear about the neighborhoods versus the general categories. so i don't think it's complete and reflective of what should go into each of the sections. >> i don't think i understand, i confess. >> the submissions on the consultants, district seven goes west of twin peaks council and district seven. we did not include all west of twin peaks council. we excluded pinelake park and that whole area in district four. and i believe there might be one other distinction.
2:50am
so again -- >> seems like that's a good example of the discussion we had, depending on whose definition one uses, they are accurate or not accurate. >> so my pontiffcation would be that is not accurate by anyone's description because the west of twin peaks council was not included in the entirety but we included 30 of the 32 neighborhoods. >> let me ask this then, through this process we identify those and provide the appropriate, i guess additional point i would make is and that said not attempt to try to represent all of them because that wasn't the assignment of the exercise. when i say all of them, i mean every neighborhood, not that we should represent incomplete neighborhoods. >> you lost me there. >> sorry.
2:51am
i lost myself. >> let me get to this section in terms of live editing. we ned to move things to update numbers. >> good enough. continue, sir. >> so moving to the next section entirely. >> yes, please. >> last section in the direct report is six, lessons learned and recommendations and i believe that the discussion we held on wednesday evening, the language here around the process, that was our joint member melara and my joint understanding of where we left that discussion, than language exists in this draft based on that. and we also discussed the invitation, that we would submit
2:52am
our own lessons learned and they would be characterized by each individual members, lessons learned and recommendations should they choose to share them in the report. so the last separate handout, with the language member tidwell submitted and how we didn't get but we will try to get now, the recommendations or lessons learned that three of us contributed. so if there is anyone who else has contributed or has lightning now that doesn't appear here, aside from member tidwell, then it would be good to -- to clarify that. >> is this on -- what's the topic? >> well t. has to do with some of the lessons learned, individual members. because my recollection of our understanding was that it was not against the rules or against any policy to -- for anybody to
2:53am
write whatever they wanted to write and attach it. the question i thought was that we never really voted that we would do it or not do it. and my concerns is that because -- for me, i didn't understand that we would all submit something separately. i didn't write anything. and this is too late to do it. but so what i would consider, what i would request for the members here is to look at these pieces and see if they're reflected already in the report, and if they're not and we want to accept them and just add them, it would be something to do rather than have, you know, a separate piece of paper with two or three people on it. >> so -- >> because i didn't think that we were told that we would -- that we go ahead and write separate things. >> so just as a point of recollection, we did have a discussion, it was in the context of how much of the draft
2:54am
at the time there was consensus around and what became clear is that there were many elements in that section where there was not consensus which led us to the determination that items where there was consensus, those would be completed as they have been and that there would in fact be exception for those members wishing to, not required to, but wishing to desireous of submitting their own lessons learned that we would allow that. it was not a requirement. and you're right as point of fact we did not vote on it but general consensus that's fine for those members that wished to do so. >> and having said and having heard that, the issue is i don't think we had any -- any -- we disagreed, for example, member leigh's comments here. don't think we ever discussed this. so if that's some, you know, member leigh, member mondejar, don't know if we discussed her need for her to have this or in
2:55am
a different setting in a different way. i know with member pilpel, we did have the discussion and that's where we were having the disagreement and that's where we said, if he wants to write something, he can do it and anybody can do it. but i didn't realize we were going to end up with, you know, three other things. because the other two, we never discussed it and if we want to include it, at this point we agry with it and are fine with it, i would rather include things as part of our report than as part of something different. >> ok sofment to that point here's what i would offer. if members leigh and mondejar because we did, we were at least clear enough to say to members that you were allowed to write your own lessons learned and recommendations and so these three members have chosen to do so, to your point, which is a
2:56am
proposal, if you will, if any one of these members, pilpel, mondejar or leigh would like to have their submission included in the body as a consensus submission, i would look to members leigh, mondejar and pilpel to raise that question because as we agree that they could do it this way, i do not want to change that simply because we would like it included in the body. so mr. leigh, would you like to have considered your rather lessons learned considered to become no longer a single submission of your own but to be blended into the larger body of the report? >> i think basically the answer -- my answer is yes. to the extent the task force agrees with this, i would actually love to have it be
2:57am
supported or this notion be supported by the task force of the hole. i have one small concern which i can hold on to. if at the end of the discussion we only have three, i guess we're going to have four with member tidwell. but let's say depending how this discussion concludes, if we have only one or two, it wouldn't bother me as much. but if we only had one member that was captured in sort of in the context of individual members, recommendations and lessons learned, i think it could be awkward for the report. it doesn't bother me a whole lot. i could live with it. but it could little a little odd . >> so the answer is yes, and in a moment we'll go back to the top on this. i don't want to stay here too long. i want to be clear when we get here, what we're going to do is review collectively member leigh's submission and determine if there's consensus. if there is consensus, we will move it to the body of that section.
2:58am
miss mondejar? >> i have no objection incorporating my comments into the body of the report. what i would suggest is to instead of sort of rewrite this a little bit so that it doesn't -- because it just feels like the way it's written, there's a voice, it's coming from a particular person's voice. i would suggest if you're going to incorporate all of this as one of our voice t. could get edited a little built to reflect that. >> so in answer to your submission, you're open to a, reach a consensus, and b, it being folded in. to be clear with both of you what this means fundamentally is that not being attributed to
2:59am
you? because this section is the opportunity for staff, something attributed to you. the other section is not. >> i for my part don't have any problem that. >> same thing. >> mr. pilpel. >> i'm sorry, have i been busy editing the report but it's been a great conversation i have been hearing. >> fantastic. >> if there's consensus on the language that i suggested, i would be happy for that to be consensus stuff. i did revise the language considerably based on our last discussion wednesday night along the lines of what member melara suggested. i tried to reduce some of my stronger feelings. >> we're going to come to review it in a moment. i want a general direction, agreement or not. so clear clear all three that have submitted individual recommendations are respectively open to a consensus around it